Summary Any challenge of established scientific dogma is labeled pseudoscience. Isn't that a bit arrogant? Isn't pseudoscience only pseudoscience until it's actual... science? But people are afraid to go up against the establishment. Kepler and Copernicus were ridiculed by their peers. Louis Pasteur's research was rejected by the medical establishment. Gregor Mendel. Nikola Tesla. Initially, they were rejected. Imagine the hate they'd get if Twitter existed? In 1903 when the Wright Brothers and others were building airplanes, the New York Times said manned flight would not be possible for 1 to 10 million years. In 1985, the New York Times said no matter how inexpensive or powerful a laptop computer would become, nobody would want one. When Apple announced the iPhone, the Times said they'd probably never build it and even if they did, nobody would buy it. Speaking of Twitter, here's what the Times said when it launched: "Using Twitter for literate communication is about as likely as firing up a CB radio and hearing some guy recite 'The Iliad.' ... Whether the service can be made into a sustainable business, quite unknown. I'm skeptical." If you suggest any idea that goes against the mainstream, you're viciously attacked. Not just by Facebook and Twitter, but by the New York Freakin Times. Aren't new ideas worth exploring? Did Steve Jobs care what people thought about him? Does Elon Musk care? No. They just went out and changed the world. George Bernard Shaw said: "All great truths begin as blasphemies." This message is to those blasphemers. To the misfits and dreamers and visionaries. My message is to you: they are going to attack you. They are going to hate you. Ignore them. Keep dreaming. Keep building. Keep blaspheming. Because I can tell you with 100% certainty the world needs you - much more - than it needs the New York Times.

• Comedy
• Crime
• Reality TV
• Short